A total of 240,000 years of life were said to be lost in Europe in 2010 with 480,000 work days a year and 22,600 "life years" lost in Britain, the fifth most coal-polluted country.
Of course, nuclear power plants are safe short term. Their threat is catastrophe, which given time, is inevitable.
Of course it is. 161 people are killed for each THw of coal energy. And 0.04 people for each THw of nuclear power and this INCLUDES Chernobyl!
> However the impact of nuclear catastrophe is far far more insidious and lasting
Clearly you've never seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly... the radiation and heavy metals released from that can never be cleaned (just diluted).
> particularly when caused by a global calamity that causes meltdown in many plants.
A what?? And how do you manage that? If you have unreasonable fears then there is no point in talking to you. Reason will not remove an unreasonable fear.
We are on a blob of rock hurtling through an unknown cosmos. Calamities are very possible. It is deeply irresponible to create projects that will make large parts of the earth uninhabitable should the power grid fail for a long period or human stewardship go on hiatus. Meteor strikes, emps, plagues, terrorist attacks, economic collapse,and other disasters are well within the realm of possibility
They would back the position that wind turbines are safer than coal, so you're not wrong that they might be biased to imply coal is more dangerous than it is.